Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

206 F.2d 439

Docket No. 11514.

Rosden v. Brownell

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued April 21, 1953.

Decided June 11, 1953.

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1953-06-11

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently June 1953

1 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Relies on Feyerabend v. McGrath

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1953-06-11

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*440Mr. George Eric Rosden, appellant pro se, with whom Mr. Richard L. Merrick, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.

¶2Mr. John F. Cushman, Attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., of the bar of the Supreme Court of New York, pro hoc vice, by special leave of Court, with whom Messrs. Rowland F. Kirks, Asst. Atty. Gen., at time brief was filed, and George B. Searls, Attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellees.

¶3Before EDGERTON, CLARK and PROCTOR, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5In 1907 Amalie Janner, née Schaefer, an American citizen, through marriage became a citizen and resident of Germany. Later she acquired property from the estate of her father, an American citizen and resident. During World War II the property so acquired was vested in the United States under § 5(b) of the Trading with the Enemy Act, 40 Stat. 415 (1917), as amended 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix, § 5(b). Upon these facts Mrs. Janner’s administrator sued in the District Court under § 9(b) (3) of said Act for return of the vested property. The court dismissed the action with prejudice upon authority of Feyerabend v. McGrath, 1951, 89 U.S.App.D.C. 33, 189 F.2d 694. There this Court holds that § 9(b) (3) was temporary legislation applicable only to property seized during World War I. Admittedly this appeal seeks an overruling o£ that decision. We adhere to it.

¶6Affirmed.

/206/f2d/439 · .json · Public domain